How bloodthirsty an outburst would it take for the Independent editors to turn away this person’s work?

Very recently, you were only willing to publish part of a letter I sent you. You said that my writing the following lines was not acceptable [1]

“.. please explain how your definition [of a dictator] does not apply to Tony Blair and the UK government whose crimes, by the way, EXCEED those that can be credibly blamed on Gaddafi.

The Independent also called former Haitian president Jean Bertrand Aristide a "dictator" the day after he was overthrown in a US led coup on February 29, 2004.

Your newspaper has provided highly revealing lessons in how the "liberal" media reinforces the lies and assumptions of the far right Murdoch press.

I'm sure there are employees within the autocratic Independent who are quite disgusted by this editorial. They will not publicly express such a view which shows why the word "autocratic" does accurately describe your newspaper. “

Consider what this says about the values of the Independent.

Advocating the torture of foreign children makes it past editors and the writer remains welcome on its pages. However saying that Tony Blair’s crimes exceed Gaddafi’s or stating the fact that the Indy is a top-down, hence “autocratic”, workplace is unacceptable.

Feel free to run this letter but only in full, or explain why it is not acceptable to you.